Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

New Empirical Earthquake Source‐Scaling Laws

Open access
Thingbaijam, Kiran Kumar S., Martin Mai, P., Goda, Katsuichiro·2017·Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Abstract

We develop new empirical scaling laws for rupture width W, rupture length L, rupture area A, and average slip D, based on a large database of rupture models. The database incorporates recent earthquake source models in a wide magnitude range (M 5.4–9.2) and events of various faulting styles. We apply general orthogonal regression, instead of ordinary least-squares regression, to account for measurement errors of all variables and to obtain mutually self-consistent relationships. We observe that L grows more rapidly with M compared to W. The fault-aspect ratio (L/W) tends to increase with fault dip, which generally increases from reverse-faulting, to normal-faulting, to strike-slip events. At the same time, subduction-inter-face earthquakes have significantly higher W (hence a larger rupture area A) compared to other faulting regimes. For strike-slip events, the growth of W with M is strongly inhibited, whereas the scaling of L agrees with the L-model behavior (D correlated with L). However, at a regional scale for which seismogenic depth is essentially fixed, the scaling behavior corresponds to the W model (D not correlated with L). Self-similar scaling behavior with M − log A is observed to be consistent for all the cases, except for normal-faulting events. Interestingly, the ratio D/W (a proxy for average stress drop) tends to increase with M, except for shallow crustal reverse-faulting events, suggesting the possibility of scale-dependent stress drop. The observed variations in source-scaling properties for different faulting regimes can be interpreted in terms of geological and seismological factors. We find substantial differences between our new scaling relationships and those of previous studies. Therefore, our study provides critical updates on source-scaling relations needed in seismic–tsunami-hazard analysis and engineering applications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1785/0120170017

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Metadata

Authors
Thingbaijam, K. K. S., Martin Mai, P., & Goda, K.
Venue
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Published
2017-09-25
Volume
107
Issue
5
Pages
2225-2246
ISSN
  • 0037-1106 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3573
OpenAlex
W2756545662
Cited by
369
References
36
FWCI
11.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: New Empirical Earthquake Source‐Scaling Laws. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1785/0120170017
The paper
Thingbaijam, K. K. S., Martin Mai, P., & Goda, K. (2017). New Empirical Earthquake Source‐Scaling Laws. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170017

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.